Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 268 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 11
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Sun, Apr 11, 2021, 11:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S1: 11001001

@Silly

Can't remember off-hand but was this Earth they were at? Regardless, who's to say it's the same spacedock? 70 some years have passed, so, they probably just built a bigger Spacedock in that time.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 7:55pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S2: Horizon

@Franke's Nughtmare

My headcanon is that World War 3 and EMP's pretty much wiped all 21st century digital stored and recorded culture.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 4:27pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S3: A Matter of Perspective

I think a LOT of people are missing the point of that scene and the episode. It's not an either/or situation. The way those scenes in the bedroom were presented were how the characters REMEMBERED it. Neither one is more true or false than the other. The actual, factual Truth is somewhere in between.

Riker in general is a flirty frakking guy. He's got charm. Manua probably read into that. Riker probably mis-read signals Manua was sending out. Both probably on some level found the other attractive.

It's entirely possible that Riker at one point touched Manua in a way he didn't notice, pay attention or regard of any importance while she saw it as a sexual advance. She probably likewise did some innocous (to her) action he read into as a sexual advance. Both probably said something with one intended meaning, while the other read a different meaning into those words, which through faulty memory, repressed attraction and a bit of shame, the interpreted meaning over-rode the actual words.

It's not just a matter of memory either. Each retelling had differences in detail and focused on different details. What one person might regard as significant, a fabric colour, tone of voice or action, another dould take no notice of, and therefore, not attach any signifucance or meaning to. That's why communication can be so hard. Because you're not just working with your own preconceptions about everything, but the other person's as well. We see this in TV viewers all the time too. One audience member might pick up and focus on a detail that another audience member might've slipped right past.

As much as I don't like the way the phrase is used in today's parlance, Riker is telling his Truth, Manua is telling hers and the actual facts of the events are somewhere in between.

Is the accusation of rape extreme? Very much so. But in the time this was written, it was a dramatic example to get the point of the episode across. Additional perspectives and understandings cultivated in the intervening time since the episode aired likewise have shaped the interpretation of that scene.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Thu, Mar 11, 2021, 6:14pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S4: In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II

@Tom

A) The uniformn division colors in Enterprise are the same as they were on TOS, just less noticable because they were mere shoulder stripes.

B) The crew that boarded the Defiant did so with EVA suits on and wore the TOS style uniforms as they had to take their outer regular duty jumpsuits off to put on the EVA suits, meaning they didn't have their regular uniforms on hand.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 5:03pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: What You Leave Behind

As always, great, insightful replies from this group. I have to admit, when a couple people hit me with the DS9 is not optimistic and sneered at the idea, I at least needed to take a moment to verify my reading of the series. But I figured I couldn't be THAT wrong. Yeah, it's "the war series" but it's also so much more than that. Indeed, as I mentioned, the thinking behind those sneering opposing views seems to be the trend among the younger viewers. This, plus the entire argument, betrayed a lack of nuance, perspective and comprehension in the thinking I encountered, as well as a sence of entitlement and in-grained unmovable conviction in that thinking. "It can't be wrong because I thought of it." There's also a trend to take insults of an argument as an insult to the arguer.

But yest @the other Bob, I knew going in diving into that topic on Twitter was folly, and yet here I am. This fool trod where angels fear to go.

Not that'll help my case for doing so, but the reason I waded in was because I saw that tired and lazy "It's Star Trek because Star Trek is in the title argument" with the counterpoint that even though the botched restoration of a"The Virgin Mary" painting is still called as such, no one would say it is the same as it was before. It is clearly an inferior product.

The argument to this was that there are many different parts of the Trek franchise rather than a singular work. This is what lead to the Trek's main thrust is optimism perspective.

It was, in all very unproductive in terms of convincing others, as most endeavours to do so on the internet are, but it did allow me a better chance to see and analyze the thinking of those on the opposing side at least.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 2:58am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: What You Leave Behind

So, last week, like a doofus, I decided to disagree with someone on Twitter about nuTrek. Yeah, big mistake. But the way that arguement went has kinda sat with me all this time. Essentially the defendents view was that Star Trek's core tenent is exploration, and thus it should be able to explore different tones. My counterpoint that Trek's core tenent is optimism, and the tone of the franchise should be one that is optimistic.

Their counter the THAT was... Deep Space Nine. Because DS9 to them is not an optimistic show. And all I could think was how surface level are people viewing these shows to see a series that yes, does revolve around a costly and deadly war, but is also still optimistic? I listed out a number of optimistic aspects of the show, Nog's easy physical recovery from a grave injury, the ease of availability for psychological help with that, the Bajoran's recovery efforts and the major strides in that, stuff like that.

The person screenshotted it and then posted a smug tweet of it to their followers. No doubt hoping to dogpile as well as provoke me into saying something they could victimize themselves with. That bait I did not take and did my best to extricate myself from what I sensed could turn into a nasty twitter dogpile, cause boy do some people know how to game that system to work for them and point their "legions" in a direction, as they paint themselves in a certain way, regardless of other perspectives.

But I realized that a) if the reading comprehension of modern (entitled) viewers is so shallow so as to only see surface level of the media they partake in, then OF COURSE nuTrek is to their liking and those damn shows found and are writing for their audience. And b) if that is NOT the case, then perhaps *I* mis-read this show...

So, is Star Trek: Deep Space Nine an optimistic show? And does it provide reasonable justification for the existence of the darker toned, harsher nuTrek shows?
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Sat, Feb 13, 2021, 2:11pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

Yep Sven, there's just not much there. What makes this whole nuTrek v. Classic Trek thing more frusterating isn't JUST the departures from the old shows, but that the shows themselves aren't actually that good on their own. It's not like the people who don't like them are saying they'd be good if they weren't identified under the "Star Trek" label (although I think they'd be viewed BETTER) but that they're just not overly well thought out or constructed either way. And yet, people are gobbling them up. I have to wonder if the Star Trek brand and the identity politics of representation are blinding people from critical analysis and giving them bias. On the other hand, as you said, your wife likes it.

I think perhaps what really frusterates me is that usually with most things, I can see the otherside, see where people are coming from. Trek TAUGHT me that. But with this, I have no idea how people how people can't see the flaws that are glaringly obvious to me. I can't understand it, or see what they see that elevates this spate of new Trek.

You've given it 4 seasons so far, S1 of Picard was my Strike three. I only come back here to keep abreast of the decisions the writers have made so I can figure out ways to write them away. Otherwise I'm done watching Star Trek: Dilution, Star Trek: Picked Apart and Star Trek: Lower Brow.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 8:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S3: Unfinished Business

@ Kirk Walker,

Based on context, I believe it's supposed to mean "will they, won't they" Mostlikely a typo of the initialism.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Tue, Feb 9, 2021, 6:29pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Nemesis

I've always got a chuckle out of the idea that Starfleet kicked her upstairs after either her sketchy decisions in the DQ, or the trauma from it.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Fri, Feb 5, 2021, 12:50pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

Rest in Peace, Christopher Plummer.
"Cry havok, and let slip the dogs of war!"
Set Bookmark
Mark Nolan
Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 5:23am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S3: Life Support

... also Bareil 2.0 would have been unique*. Is he human? What makes someone human? He was born a human, he has a human body, he has his memories and personality, he can even father human children (with his human body).

* In the ST universe, and possibly in science fiction (certainly the popular franchises).
Set Bookmark
Mark Nolan
Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 4:59am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S3: Life Support

"An alive (but robotic) Bareil would have been a decent way of handling his character going forward"

I agree. This would have been fascinating, and different from Data's journey (an android wanting to become more human).

Bareil 2.0 would be a human with his brain replaced with a positronic matrix (is he still human?) . Effectively a robot brain with a human body - as opposed to a human brain with a robot body (e.g. RoboCop). SciFi doesn't have many characters like this - I can't think of any.

Bareil 2.0 would have somehow had Bareil's memories and personality transferred, since that's what Bareil wanted in order to do whatever it takes to continue the peace treaty negotiations. It raises many questions, and it would be interesting to see how Bareil 2.0 navigates being thrown into Bareil 1.0s life. Bareil 2.0 could discover new things about himself, for example if his "software" (memories and personality) is now being run on superior hardware, what would that mean? Let's say he can think quicker, how will that affect the development of his personality, or his interactions with others. I think Bareil 2.0 could have been one of the most interesting characters in all of SciFi.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 4:11pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Generations

All that said, I just watched the originally shot "Christmas" sequence on the DVD and it was clunky as all heck. Picard's blindfold comes off and all his kids (including two that got cut) are standing there in front of him, oldest to youngest, arrayed like their taking a darned photograph and "Acting." Rene wasn't there and it was far more subdued, stiff and formal. If you thought the version in the film was saccharine, then this version was choking to death on it's "sweetness" Picard would not have pulled himself away from that Christmas, he have RUN.

The more chaotic, rambunctious version definitely rang truer and I think played into the mind set of Picard's head space at the time. "What if I had a family? What if I weren't a stick in the mud? What if I enjoyed being around kids? What if I could do everything different? Maybe I would be so grief stricken right now if *I* were different."

And apparently, during this and the reshoot for the final fight, Stewart was on another movie and had grown out his hair. So for portions of Generations he was fake bald... er. You'd think with an actor like Stewart, you wouldn't have to deal with changing hair styles, but not so I guess, haha.

It's no Super-stasche though. Lookin' at you, Justice League.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 6:41am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Generations

I myself watched Generations last week. I STILL think All Good Things isthe bigger, more climactic story that ties a bow on TNG better than this movie. But this film is richly themed, exploring the desires of both Catains and tying them together.

I think it's easy to forget WHY Kirk's Nexus fantasy ends up as it does, because there's a whole movie between when he enters the Nexus and Picard meeting him.

He goes from ringing in the Enterprise-B, feeling old and outdated, and yet struggling with the youthful inexperience of the ahem, Next generation of Starfleet officer, (no doubt the performance of the young captain emblematic of how fans fearedaTNG would go; a new younger crew, parroting Treknobabble while trying to emulate the example of the TOS crew) feeling reduced to giving empty soundbites for media outlets in what amounts to a tickertape parade, realizing his focus on his career lead him to this point and, for the moment, finding it empty. Meanwhile he finds out Sulu, a Captain like him, has found time for a family and has a living legacy while his is a young, inexperienced, unprepared captain sitting in the seat he gave up. And off to the Nexus he goes. To when he can take the last chance he had to avoid the life he ended up with and became personally disillusioned with.

Picard goes on a similar journey. His brother hada kid and he saw that as his chance to devote himself to the life of Starfleet. An escape from the pressure and responsability of family life. Besides, he hated kids. But as we know, he actually met his nephew and related to him a bit at a time when his faith in Starfleet life was shaken and he grew to be if not at ease with kids, then at least able to tolerate them. And then his nephew dies and he's hit by the loss of that potential and connection to his own youth and feels like maybe he cheated choosing Stargleet over family and feeling perhaps empty in the moment about the course of his life. And of course,I've been watching some first time reactions to early TNG where the viewers find Picard's surliness towards kids amusing so his hatred of kids at that point was fresh in my mind when I watched this again and so help me I cried. I was just hit by that man's journey from not wanting to deal with children to recognizing the joy and pride kids can bring and wanting to be swarmed by their hugs and appreciation. And happy to have it.

Both Captains find the thing that'll bring them joy from the despair of moment the Nexus took them. And were sorely tempted by that promise of family and happiness and in a way by the choice to be selfish. But both come to realize that's not who either of them are. They both chose the life of Stardleet, their career and the responsibility of self-sacrifice so that others could have the life they gave up. As nice as the Nexus was at giving them the happiness they needed, they knew they had to go back and sacrifice again. In Kirk's case, ultimately.

I think that's also why they only went back as far as they did. Because they had a job to do and they while they could cheat and change things to be more ideal that's not who either of them are. They are men who sacrifice for the mission and reject the temptation of the Nexus.

Also interesting is how when they first meet in the Nexus, their differences are subtly highlighted. Kirk, the outdoorsy, manly chef, Picard a bit more intellectually focused and a bit, dare-I-say, dainty. (You can almost see Kirk mentally rolling his eyes at how the legacy of the Enterprise captain turned out; "oh, great, here's another precocious young Enterprise Captain that doesn't know a thing.") But by the end of their time together it's been shown how similar they are too.

Something else that occured to me is how Generations acts as a bookends of sort to TOS, where a DIFFERENT Enterprise Captain became trapped in a place where he was temped by his fantasies and desires after becoming disillusioned with the Starfleet life but ultimately regected it all because it wasn't real and was just a prison. Just a Cage.

Sure, the movie lacked a big bombastic villain, was more introspective and quiet and the return & final battle of James T. Kirk lacked significant punch and some necessary pathos and it didn't really live up to the meeting of generations that it promised, but thematically it's a wonderful film that really digs into the characters and does a decent job compairing and contrasting the two lead men. Which is classic RDM. The Nexus I guess is classic Braga high concept idea.

When it works, it works, when it doesn't, it doesn't. I definitely appreciated it more than I have this ladt viewing, and I always liked it. But I think First Contact is still the better movie. It succeeded more at what it was trying to be while Generations is a _little_ scattered.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:16am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: In the Pale Moonlight

Man, am I ever getting annoyed by fans of the morally darker New Star Treks pointing to this and "For the Uniform" as justifications via "whataboutism" for "Discovery," "Picard" and "Lower Decks"'s reprehensible moral codes. These were the EXCEPTIONS to for Sisko, while being the rule for those series.

Here is a whole EPISODE about Sisko reflecting on the damage he did and trying to come to an "ends justifying the means" reasoning, with his success in doing so VERY much in doubt. Characters in the new Trek don't even bat a friggin' eye at wanton murder.

As for "For the Uniform" there's a whole tizzy about chemical warefare on civilians. Admittedly, not a good look, but also ignoring complete situational context. That was a COLONY world. By it's very nature such a world would not have large numbers of infirm upon it because it's not a difficult supposition to make that only able-bodies and fit people would sign up for frontier colonization, given that it would likely entail large amounts of physically demanding work. That plus the fact there was ample evacuation time and a whole other planet close by to evacuate to, makes Sisko's decision to do this, while not a great action, not the murderous genocide some make it out to be.

And then there's the whole Dominion War. And if you need me to explain the difference between a period of sustained conflict against a singular enemy faction seeking to annihilate you with superior tech and numbers versus vaprizing every opponent in every hostile encounter, (when you have STUN settings no less) be it a gang of bounty hunters or an enemy vessel, then I really have to wonder what's wrong with you. Preferably we'd all want to do our best to avoid either, but the new Treks don't even try, or feel remorse. Not when they're too busy feeling fully justified for every murder because they tell themselves they have the moral high ground and were RIGHT. Pretty sure that thinking is what's lead to every religious conflict ever.

Can't wait for Kurtzman's new Trek series, Star Trek: Crusades, where the plucky, failed upwards captain who is brave enough to show their feelings at every oppertunity leaves the Alpha through Gamma Quadrents awash in the blood of those that refused to come around to the Federations dogmatic, moralistic way of thinking. It'll be a real barn-buster of an action romp thst promises to truely resonate with 4% of it's audience and pats them on the head dhile telling them how right THEY are. Gaw, I wouldn't put it past him, I really wouldn't.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Sat, Jan 9, 2021, 5:47am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

@Peter Swinkels

Nice cherry-picking. However, as I was talking about Starfleet as an organization, it would follow that, a) personal screw ups such as a barroom brawl with significant personal consequences while not on assignment and without the risk of operational failiure does not fall under the umbrella of Starfleet's purview for disciplinary action to the extent of permenently damaging career advancement, and;

B) you're argument is to point out the examination of *one* incident in deference to my point about *consistent* screw-ups. Picard eludes to other potential loose threads, yes. But Tapestry was about personal choices affecting all areas of life, including professional development, but it was not, I should point out, about bad professional calls. You want episodes about that, then let's look at "Court Martial," obviously, "Pegasus," "Rules of Engagement," and "Change of Heart" all involving bad professional choices and the shadows they (potentially) cast over the career of their characters. That none of them are drummed out of Starfleet is due to the extent of their exempilary careers bolstering them through, although Worf still pretty much had his chances for captaincy blackballed. Kirk nearly lost the Enterprise for seeming to push. The. Wrong. Button. Fer crying outloud.

Personal screw ups that don't endanger the mission, the ship or the lives of the crew beyond your own? Yes, learning experience. *Professional* screw ups that infringe on any of those, require professional consequences. And any officer that has a track record of numerous professional failings would never sit in that chair. Especially without a stellar track record to prove growth or change and understanding of the awesome responsibility of command since the last failiure.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Sat, Jan 9, 2021, 12:13am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

I haven't been watching any of these shows since the end of "Picard" S1. That was MY third strike. Which is apparently not leinient enough for Kurtzman's Star Trek. So I'm just reading a bit of what happened this year.

What?!? They made her Captain?! Like, great for the first female black Captain protagonist, that's one Trek's been lacking. But couldn't they have gotten a non-awful character instead? Everything I've seen and read of Micheal Burnham has shown her to be an abject failure when it comes to Starfleet protocol. Prople have been barred from captaincy for less. Yet somehow she's failed upwards.

...

Failed upwards... OOHHH. It all makes sense now. Kurtzman is writing what he knows. The man has made a career of failing up into positions of power while doing sub-par, poor quality work that somehow taps into something that higher ups abitrarily deemed worthwhile and rewarded him for even if he didn't really deserve the honor. So of course that's how he think Starfleet command works. Lucking your way up the totem pole via incompetence until you gain a position of power where the judgement of others is beneath you, but who's critisizing because everyone *must* love you in order for you have to gotten to this point of control. Nevermind the string of failures and botched projects behind you. They don't matter so long as you give the important people with bureaucratic power what they want, nevermind if you're actually *capable* of doing the job.

No wonder it seems Kurtzman doesn't understand Trek. He doesn't. He doesn't understand a merit-based heirarchy where consistent, consecutive strings of successes and exemplarairy works are what will elevate you into higher positions. No, what he understands is that shallow appeals to the blinded by valued commodities of the decision-makers is what'll get you places. In his case, shallow appeals to money desired by studio execs. In Burnham's case shallow appeals to ideologies of the inncorrectly-viewed purely ideologically driven Starfleet (or what ever bs reason they promoted her) and in Discovery's case, shallow appeals to the ideologies of the fans it has.

Manipulative garbage. But I'm beginning to think not intentionally so. I don't think Kurtzman knows that that is not how the world realistically or ideally works for everyone else. No wonder every character he's written are vapid caracatures that succeed despite themselves. That's Kurtzman. It's also an incredibly narrow appeal, and I can see why it appeals to those who just wish all the hardships they faced would magically be solved after having to fight and strain against systems that seem to keep them down when the reality is that Starfleet, as originally designed, was a system where the excellent are rewarded and highlighted and the consistent screw ups drowned out, a system that is NOT for everybody, but that's okay, because the world of Star Trek doesn't hold that against anybody, but instead frees them to find the work they love and excel at with no cost to anybody or judgement from anyone.

Star Trek Discovery is made to appeal to the Norvo's, Richard Bashir's, Nikolai Rozhenko's and Alexander Rozhenko's of that world. Dreamers who haven't found their place, have vague awareness of what they want to do in life, but feel constrained by the workings of the society they find themselves in. If only they could fail their way to success. Just like Kurtzman's cleverly disguised self-insert character. You'd never tell it was him by looking at her!

At least I know why this all seems like fanfic by a barely comprehending fan of the source material. It is.

What a damn shame. Star Trek deserves better.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Tue, Dec 8, 2020, 9:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Galaxy's Child

I had a slight revelation about this episode based on a rewatch of "Booby Trap." In that episode, when Geordie wants to add personality to the Brahms simulation he asks for a psych profile, which could be who knows how long out of date, thus representing a younger more carefree Brahms (perhaps based off her entry exam into Starfleet ala Wesley's entrance - which wouldn't account for either's personal growth over that time) but also, and more importantly, he asked the computer to model her persona off of _speaking appearances_ that she gave. By nature of speech giving, one adpots a certain performative persona in order to connect with the audience, and the back and forth repore she may have formed with an audience during a Q and A session. As such, by using these two flawed samplings, it's not suprising that reality doesn't match Geordie's fantasy, and despite some sketchiness in the way Geordie interacts with Brahms in these two episodes, I think both are really good explorations of a typical parasocial relationship.

The computer based Brahms off her public persona, NOT her entire one. Remember, people only post what they want you to see.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 12:08am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S1: Encounter at Farpoint

@Gonzo

Presumably, when it comes to such things as liquids and other edibles, it's not so much the Holodeck, but replicators wired into the holodeck as well.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Thu, Nov 5, 2020, 5:14pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Timescape

@James G

The runabout is the main shuttlecraft of Deep Space Nine, which started airing concurrently with Season 6 of TNG after the "Chain of Command" two-parter. By this point we'd recognize it. Interestingly, this rear interior runabout set only appeared as the runabout in this episode, though in DS9 it was used for other things. Thoe cockpit, howrver is a mainstay on DS9.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 4:00pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 1

Am I really reading that people are arguing that a character calling himself a conservationist and setting himself apart from the rest of his family who are all murderers as he doesn't murder SHORTLY AFTER AN ACTION SCENE WHERE HE VAPORIZES A NUMBER OF ACTUAL PEOPLE is anything other than bad writing? That viewing such a vast disparity in the words characters say versus the actions they take is just a matter of subjective opinion?

It'd be one thing if that was ever called out, but since this type of discontinuity of character has happened throughout these new shows, I don't think there's narrative purpose to it, it's just sloppy writing. And sure, people banged on about Janeway flip-flopping on her principles from episode to episode, but at the very least she tended not to say one thing, then do another within the SAME episode, at least not without deep reflection. At best this type of writing is Kurtzman calling out idealists who spout all the right words with none of the conviction of action behind them (thus drawing comparisons to Trump and his cult of personality), in a way, mocking all those flocking to his shows simply because he says the right words and spotlights the right things, thus misdirecting eyes away from the multitudes of various narrative sins he commits. At worst he just doesn't care at all and is using the Trek brand as a lisence to print money. (That is classic Cultural Studies vs. Political Economy schools of analysis) Calling Kurtzman an inept writer and creative head is really just the mid-point between those two extremes.

That Kurtzman doesn't see the point in inbuing the words of his scripts with anything more than in the moment emotional manipulation or backing them up with significant and likewise virtuous action leaves them as empty and hollow. Star Trek for 50 years was a cultural touchstone that inspired humanity onward. We wouldn't have cellphones as we know them without Trek. Astronauts and engineers and scientists would not've been inspired to pursue and excel in their fields if not for Star Trek. But now, for Kurtzman to inherit the awesome responsibility of carrying Trek onward into the 21st century, he has decided to focus on it, it would seem, as primarily a source of entertainment, full of cheap thrills and hollow platitudes that amount to unearned moments of gravitas that fall flat in face any sort of introspection. And to be fair, if that does you, and you enjoy it for that, then power to you. But for oh so many, Trek has been and could be so. Much. More. And it's for the future of Star Trek, and its power as a massive cultural touchstone that people are speaking out against it's current form. Trek is now laughing at those that still love it, and those that hate what it's become. I find that disgusting when really all I want is to love Star Trek again.

I should point out, Trek is not alone in having a vast disparity between the words characters speak and the actions they take, this seems to be a growing trend in hollywood. Take BvS for example, wherein Batman goes after Superman for all the wanton destruction Sups cause and the lives the Kryptonian ruined with his careless destruction while every action scene involving Batman in that film has Batman causing wanton destruction and carelessly ruining lives. And is that any part of the main conflict? No, it's Lex Luthor touching on none of this hypocracy, but instead masterminding the most convoluted plan imaginable to bring things to a head. Do these things entertain? Sure. But are they enriching the mind and soul? No, they do not hold up to much scrutiny, they weaken the motives of the characters and the motifs the work attempts to establish, muddying the message trying to be conveyed by that work. That is, most certainly, objectifiably bad writing.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 1:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Looking for Par'mach in All the Wrong Places

@Tara, Peter G.

Regarding both the "weakening" of Kira and the length and narrative purpose of the pregnancy plotline, remember, those are both determined by the timetable and demands of the Kira actress' *real* pregnancy (With Bashir actor Siddig El Fadil's child!). Nana Visitor couldn't rush that along anymore than the writers, and it'd be pretty cruel to throw a pregnant woman into demanding action plots. I think they probably extended the pregnancy story past the birth of the actudl child given some later episodes, but given the context of real life behind the scenes, I don't begrudge Kira getting "lighter" fare here.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 4:43pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Statistical Probabilities

As a graduate of one of the lesser regarded social sciences, I am absolutely tickled that a discussion of the validity of said sciences has become a discussion of what the *word* science means. Meaning making and the interpretation of words and symbols among different perspectives being a rather big area of social sciences. Ha.

That's all, carry on.
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 6:28pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The First Duty

Sigh, the WRITER of "Measure of a Man," Melinda Snodgrass, didn't get royalties from the use of her character....
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 5:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The First Duty

But suprisingly NOT a deterrent to the use of Bruce Maddox in "Picard," who evidently did NOT see royalties from her characters use in the series.l, from what I hear. Just in case anyone needs another reason to dislike that show.
Next ►Page 1 of 11
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2021 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. Terms of use.